Let the games begin!

This on the day when the AF CoS was talking about the "appalling" number of sexual assaults in the AF last year...

This is going to be fun to watch. Glad I'm not going to have to live through it from the inside, however.

Oh, how we're going to fracture the language on this one.

Because no one I know trusts the leadership to do the adult thing, and establish gender-neutral norms.

We believe the norms will be fitted to ensure that everybody can play, in a statistically balanced manner to please the politicals.

Not in such a manner as to actually address the requirement.

But I could be wrong. Mebbe the leadership is up to it. But I won't hazard a dime on that bet.

Prove us wrong, Generals.

I think the Army and Marines are most impacted by this decision. They were the only ones who really had any exclusions left, outside of SOF. My issue isn't letting women in - my issue is will the standards be gender-normed or not. If they set standards that are standards for strength and endurance that are gender-neutral for the direct combat type jobs, I say have at it. Let's answer the question, and put it behind us.

28 Comments

Given the ascendency of PC, they'll slower the standards for the Wymin and keep them for the guys.

The entire thing is foolish anyway. The Navy quickly found, and covered up, I might add, the injuries that women had to bear when serving shipboard. Stress and green stick fractures became very common among women. What happens to female POWs doesn't bear talking about.

Young men, stay away. The Generals have gone insane. We already knew the politicians were, but now it's over.

Some genders will be more equal than others, and you can bet that standards will be different for some than for others. Instead of being the best prepared fighting force to defend our country, the miltiary will be pu$$ified into a PC jobs program.

Watch for quotas for the mentally ill to soon follow the concessions to the womyn, after all, we should not deny the crazy people the opportunity to serve either.

When some actual armed enemies of our country dare to holler at our fighting womyn and hurt their feelings by saying nasty words or touch them inappropriately, why we will... will..... uh... get fighting mad?

Actually, this is a relatively minor degradation of our country, especially in view of the unbearable debt, the unsustainable entitlements, and the impending sequestration. Our country is well and truly screwed, so since none of that other stuff is going to be fixed, this womyn in combat stuff is inconsequential. We won't be able to pay them anyway, and there will be no money for fuel or ammunition, or retirement for them. Might as well just disband the combat arms entirely.

The damage by this adminstration to our nation is unprecedeted, and irrecoverable. Too bad. It WAS a great country.

When some actual armed enemies of our country dare to holler at our fighting womyn and hurt their feelings by saying nasty words or touch them inappropriately, why we will... will..... uh... get fighting mad?

Well, if that happens, can't I just holler nasty words right back and touch THEM inappropriately?

-Armor: extract a 200lb 6' person from the gunner's seat of an M1 within a specified time frame.

-Infantry: something involving a very heavy ruck and many miles over hilly terrain.

-Airborne infantry: fill rucksack completely with ammo, and add a couple of LAW rockets strapped to the top for good measure. Jump rig with ruck, body armor in jump bag (you can't wear body armor under a chute harness) and weapon. Shuffle from the Last Man position to the door of a C130 and exit the door safely. (This load, minus the body armor, is what one of my IOBC instructors jumped into Panama with. But they didn't wear body armor then, and they do now.)

-Combat engineers: pound X number of U-shape pickets to a depth of Y inches in Z minutes

On the one hand, I see this as an example of "it takes a village to hollow out a military".

On the other, why should the sexual dysfunctionals have all the fun. Let the heteros have a chance.

And somewhere in the deep, dark depths of Indiana, which are very, very deep and really, really dark, a look of stunned shock makes its way across the face of former Pvt. Jessica Lynch (and formerly all of 5'2" and 90 lbs)

What's left now ??? Anyone want to double down on the midgets/dwarfs/littler people ???

People, stop fretting! It will all be fine. Equal Opportunity to morph in to Affirmative Action - full on promotion quotas (have to have the 'right' mix, ya know?) But why should we care? Social engineering in now in order.

So why should neanderthals prevent ANYONE from getting a ranger tab, serving in Delta Force, making 3 stars? Any one want to guess when the first female will command a Ranger company, the 82nd Airborne Division, become Chairwoman of the Joint Chiefs...?? (and hey, how come no female named to Secretary of Defense yet?)

Saker, if you yell back or touch them back in the present situation, you'd probably be charged with viloation of sections 88 (Contempt towards officials), 91(nsubordinate conduct) , 99 (Misbehavior before the enemy), 117 (provoking Speech or conduct), and 128 (Assault) of the UCMJ. If you yelled abck at one particular individual, they'd probably try to hang article 114 (Dueling) on you as well.

I never thought I'd be advising kids not to go into the military, but that's what it's come down to. I don't doubt that most women could hack any job in an old style gun mount or down in the magazines, but if you can't haul an unconcious 150-180 pound body in battle gear up a couple of shipboard ladders, and thru a 20" scuttle, stay home, OK?

Even if they did make gender neutral standards (and not by lowering everything to the female standard), I can see a world of trouble when that female LTC or MSG with 18 years in can't meet the revised standard and gets booted, only to go whining to her Congresscritters.

BTW, check out JD Johannes take...have to say he makes a good point. Although he doesn't mention mech infantry, armor, combat engineers, or artillery.

RE: female LTC or MSG with 18 years in can't meet the revised standard

Y'all ain't catching on yet. No females will be booted for not meeting any 'standards'. Standards are discriminatory. There will be no standards to get in the way of quotas. X% of females will get Ranger tabs. There won't be promotion boards, there will be "how do our numbers look?" check ups and then adjustments. Debate all you want about what 'should' occur, but that won't happen. The decision has already been made, time to execute Operation Quota.

It's okay. Hollywood proved women are just as capable in combat in the Denzel Washington/Meg Ryan flick "Courage Under Fire", when chopper pilot Karen Walden earned the CMOH during her heroic and exemplary action during Desert Storm. /end sarc

I posted this in the previous discussion in response to John NTA before I read this page and saw that this would be a more apropriate venue for my slightly dissenting opinion:

Women have been in combat for the last 11 years, at least. The only difference is they can now serve in what the Army calls "Combat Arms" if they meet the standards. When I was at Victory, I saw Infantry, Cavalry and MP units go out on patrol every day, and the only difference in the 3 formations was some of the MPs had poney tails sticking out from under their brain buckets. Don't forget Sgt. Leigh Ann Hester for example... www.military.com/NewContent/0%2C13190%2CSS_061705_Silverstar%2C00.html

1. I'm sitting on an Army post right now and there are 2 male soldiers sitting next to me that I doublt could carry one of those more than a few miles at most.

2. In practical experience, it seems those famous rucks never get carried further than from the hooch to the HUMV. Of course, there is the Ranger School that keeps being brought up, but not every 11Bravo goes to the Ranger School, do they?

Another BTW: The old fear that male soldiers would take undo risks protecting the "ladies" has been pretty much debunked by the last decade of experience.

One more additional BTW: Several above have brought up questions on the ability of a female to pull a normal size man out of a Tank, ships compartment, etc. I believe most people's ablity to perform such feats in real life situations depends on their adrenaline surge more than their natural capabilities.

In the end, I suspect it will play out much as it has in other Armies. There will be an initial surge of interest, which will flag, and in the end, there won't be very many women lining up to be in the infantry.

I know the general consensus here is "the military is going to s___, get out while you still can," but... here I am 3 years in and thinking about making a career out of it. I don't know, maybe I'm just dumb and/or too idealistic.

No, Saker - you stick it out and make it work. Remember, I thought it started going to hell when they dropped my beloved M14. We're just demonstrating we're not young, and we don 't trust the Generals. It's you guys who will have make it work. Cuz it clearly ain't gonna be us!!!

No, they all don't. But you'll tell us (as others have) women "need" Ranger school, special forces billets, etc in order to be competitive. How do you get them through that path? Lower the physical standards. And you can understand why that is a concern to us old timers (war is hell)

And on the officer front, do you really expect all those infantry companies and battalions to be commanded by non-tabbed females? They are going to need to get more than 5 or 6 females through Ranger School a year, in order to get the numbers high enough to get noticed.

Who wants to make a prediction on the first female Army combat arms division commander? I'm leaning towards the 101st, and here is how: A female aviation full bird will get fast tracked to a 1 star assistant division commander slot someplace, do a stint with the joint chiefs staff, and from there it is just a 1 star jump to 101st CG, no?

If there ain't any Chick CGs running around soon, then it will be seen as not working. The Navy lowered the bar for Strike Force commanders so a Chick Admiral could be one while Lex was still in this vale of tears. The standards will be lowered for the Womyn, but, heaven forfend it be done for the guys too. The services have been lowering the bar for Women since Slick Willie was molesting interns so they could "prove" women are just as good as men. They haven't proved it yet, and, unless they can repeal the creation, never will. There are simply too few women that have the level of physical ability to hack it under male standards.

JOhn may think it's just a matter of being aged and untrusting. The age has allowed us to observe what actually happens and, as a result, we have good reason not to trust the GOFOs. Kara Hultgren is still fresh in the minds of those of us that observe reality and the reports of lowered bars are still coming in. It is anecdotal.

As John might say: Meh. This new policy comes with so many "if's" and "then's" and staggered implementaions, I would be surprised if we wind up with women in the infantry. In the press briefing yesterday for the MSM, I asked the genruls which MOS (of the 7 that are closed to women) they expected to open up first, and they named two in field artillery. So I blurted, "Red Legs lead the way!" The genruls got it, but my colleagues seemed sort of puzzled.

OK, I can't help it; I'm going to throw another rock or 2 at the pit bull:

It seems to me that most of the angst expressed above centers around female offficers and lowering the standards to let them "succeed." Well, how about this: as long as the Sergeants Major of the Army/USMC hold the line on enlisted physical standards, there's no problem. There aren't enough officers (oustside of aviation units) to impact safety, first aid etc.anyway. Besides, somebody has to provide cover fire during the evacuation of wounded soldiers.

BTW, if by some miracle, the Generals do hold the line on the standards and only true Jockette/Amazon types make it through, will that be acceptable to my fellow crusty old fa**s?

Another BTW: If some females do make it through with no tampering with the scorecards, will that cause ego issues for those of you who are proud owners of Ranger Tabs?

Of course, I have no doubt that any male who failed to make it through Ranger school will insist that quotas were met and standards were lowered, whether they were or not.

That was one thing the genruls tapdanced on: Ranger school. And SpecOps. Okay, so make that two things. They emphasized physical standards, plus the need to station women in peer groups (4 women minimum to a training group and/or duty assignment; plus a laterally transferred sergeantly female mentor in place). That won't happen tomorrow. I also wonder how many women are lined up to bust into these slots that are supposed to open in graded increments over the next couple years. As an example, the 160th already has opened aviation slots to women - but they are hunting for candidates; not the other way around. My best guess is, a handful of the abovementioned total badass types will join the combat MOSes, but there won't be many.

Blogads Milhive

Welcome to the Castle Argghhh!!!

This site is in no way affiliated with the Department of Defense,
Department of the Army, the Department of the Air Force, or the National
Guard Bureau and nothing said herein should be considered to have any
official sanction by those (or any other) agencies
Read More

We're just retired warriors and fellow-travelers and all opinions
expressed herein are mine or Dusty's or Bill's, or Kat's, or Fuzzybear's;(and
the odd guest-poster like Cassandra and the Wicca Pundit) unless quoted from
other sources. This site does *not* have the Rumsfeld Gates Seal of Approval
and we doubt he knows (or cares) it exists![Um, well, it
turns out he *does* and so does Army Secretary Geren, too.]Though we
*have* seen the Official Army Blog Training Brief, and we know that the *Counter-Intel*
people know it exists... [Waving vigorously] "Hi fellas! How are ya?"

However, we *do* know the blog is read at the White House. Because we got invited there. Kewl, huh?
Read Less